11 ms·
How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
- samstave 7y agoHmm... I have three children - and all are intelligent, beautiful well adjusted kids. 5, 7, and 15. One thing I made a point of as each was born - I maintained as much physica contact with each immediately after birth. I didnt allow them to leave or be examined without me there, touching them. I did it not for the posted reasons, but just beacuse it felt right to me. ALso - I would hum and sing to them a tune while they were still in the womb. As soon as they came out, I held them and sang and hummed the same tune to them. It immediately calmed them - with my first, she immediately relaxed and stopped crying whil the nurse took her vitals, measurements and pricked her heel. It was magical.
- nashashmi 7y agoNot sure how much it is related, but I learned how touch has a powerfully lasting impact when I read about babies from an underfunded Hungarian orphanage having lots of health problems later in life because of how little they were touched.
- yibg 7y agoSeems very probable that an underfunded orphanage will have other areas like healthcare, sanitation and nutrition lacking as well. Was there something specific about what you read that related to touch?
- nashashmi 7y agohttps://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-brains.html https://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-... https://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/02/science/the-experience-of-touch-research-points-to-a-critical-role.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/02/science/the-experience-of... This was something I quickly found. I can't seem to find the very article I read however.
- yibg 7y agoYears of neglect is quite a bit broader than just touch. I would expect years of neglect in early childhood to have a long lasting effect on the mental development of kids.
- Wildgoose 7y agoI believe you may be referring to the Romanian orphanages after the Ceasescu communist regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans
- jbuzbee 7y agoHere's another magical experience. No one will believe it, but it's true, so here goes. We too would read, sing and hum to my son in-womb. While doing so, we'd occasionally hear a loud click, the source of which we couldn't determine. But after he was born, we found out. He would press his tongue hard against the roof of his mouth then release it with a suction "pop". Was he trying to communicate back to us from the womb? We like to think so!
- m0zg 7y agoI don't think this would work without air.
- pauljurczak 7y agoMaybe it can. It's called cavitation.
- adrianN 7y agoAre fetal tongues strong enough to induce cavitation? Are fetal mouths strong enough not to be shredded by cavitation bubbles collapsing? AFAIK cavitation kills a ship's screw sooner or later.
- pauljurczak 7y agoCavitation can develop with wide range of energies. In this case, I'm suggesting energy level sufficient to create an audible sonic click, but not high enough to rip infant's head off.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> He would press his tongue hard against the roof of his mouth then release it with a suction "pop". This is an alveolar click, known as a normal part of certain African languages. If you've seen the name "!Kung San" around, it is the sound indicated by the "!K".
- s1k3b8 7y ago> I did it not for the posted reasons, but just beacuse it felt right to me. It probably felt right because it's natural. Newborns pretty much stayed with their mothers 24/7 for all of human history. This is true for chimps ( our closest ancestors ) and even our common ancestor. It's only recently with the push to get women into the workforce where women were encouraged to separate from their newborns so that they could go back to work. > As soon as they came out, I held them and sang and hummed the same tune to them. It immediately calmed them - with my first, she immediately relaxed and stopped crying whil the nurse took her vitals, measurements and pricked her heel. The mother's voice also helps premature babies develop. The fetus probably has gotten accustomed to the mother's voice in the womb and associates it with comfort and safety. Perhaps it's an evolutionary relic since many newborn animals are drawn to their mother's voice and vice versa. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/shouldstorm/201909/the-power-mothers-voice https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/shouldstorm/201909...
- animal531 7y agoHuman babies also learn the pre-constructs for the languages being spoken around them while still in the womb, so no reason they can't learn other repeated noises.
- chrissnell 7y agoReading, too. My wife and I read to our two boys when she was pregnant with them and they loved book time almost immediately, even though they slept through it for the first month or two. Fast forward and we have one 4 and one 7 years old and they are obsessed with reading and would do it every waking hour if we'd let them.
- mirsadm 7y agoOur 8 week old will cry if she is not held 24/7. Whilst it is incredibly tiring and hard work, we've found a way to make it work.
- glofish 7y agoI think there is a high chance that is 100% bullshit. Most likely has to do with confusing cause-and-effect. It could be just as well that highly methylated babies cry more and could be more demanding or parents with highly methylated babies are themselves less tolerant to crying thus end up handling babies more. The problem, they way it is being reported, and they way it lines up with pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo groupthink makes it stink. That's why it is newsworthy. People want to believe that handling a baby will change their DNA. Same bullshit like papers like this: - Scientists Say They’ve Found a Code Beyond Genetics in DNA - https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html
- tribler 7y agoscientific study: "The importance of touch in development", Brain Research Centre and Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865952/#__ffn_sectitle https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865952/#__ffn_... (as commented elsewhere)
- heimatau 7y agoThat study is only reference to the existing consensus, not the actual study from the OP. I don't have the time to dig out the actual study but it looks like [1] it's originating in Canada (not NIH/USA) based on the publication of the press release. Original comment of thread doesn't understand how much research is behind this idea (touch linked to higher outcomes long-term). I'd strongly recommend the commenter to read tribler's citation as that's scientific consensus at this point. If you want to read the recent study on DNA affects of touch, then below is that source of research. 1 - https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/holding-infants-or-not-can-leave-traces-on-their-genes/ https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/holding-infants-or-not-can-leave...
- glofish 7y agoI have performed DNA studies in my career. Measuring and interpreting methylation - understanding what it is, why, when and where it is present is at its infancy at best. Sadly I have prime view how clickbaity ideas like this one drive most of the motivations behind investigations in life sciences. It is not just this paper that is bullshit, the whole field of "epigenetics" that this paper is a representation of is bullshit as well - this paper is just one out of the long line. As I pointed out it there is simply no proof that handling changes DNA. It could just as well handling stimulates the development rate which, in turn, also shows up as another signal. The lie is not that A and B are present at the same time. The lie is presenting story as if A was caused by B. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Now hundreds of scientists want a piece of the "cool" story, will jump headfirst into proving how LOVE will reflect in the DNA. No one will care about understanding what the heck is methylation - they will all be chasing baby handling and methylation. That's what I have seen happening and will keep happening thanks to papers like this.
- gewa 7y agoThis interview sounds like unpublished bullshit, it would never stand reviewing. To claim this from the survey they conducted is just wrong. Every science student learns about the difference between causation and correlation.
- BurningFrog 7y agoWait... Does our DNA change as we age?? If so, to only sample the DNA after the study and not before seems crazy.
- crawfordcomeaux 7y agoThe article is talking about methylation, which I always interpret to mean they're referring to the epigenome. It doesn't change our DNA, so much as the expression of it.
- amelius 7y agoHow much state is in the expression of DNA? Will all this type of state be lost eventually, or is there also persistent state in the expression of DNA?
- Xixi 7y agoThe field of study is called Epigenetics [1]. I know practically nothing about it, but it seems that some of these alterations to the expression of DNA are not only persistent, but can also be inherited. Which is why some of these discoveries have been called a revenge of Lamarck over Darwin... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
- crawfordcomeaux 7y agoEpigenetic markers that appeared during the potato famine and Great Depression have been found in grandchildren of those who lived it. There's also evidence healing from trauma can change expression. What do you mean by persistent state?
- 08-15 7y agoEven if this result is real (I smell bad statistics), it's completely useless. All cells in our bodies have the same genome. But a hepatozyte and a neuron are very different cells, aren't they? The difference is that cells specialize, and they do so by selectively methylating their genome (not the only mechanism, but an important one), thereby modifying the expression of genes. So a liver has a very different epigenome than the brain of the same person. Now here we're looking at a study of the saliva epigenome, apparently the most important tissue they could come up with. Then they don't analyze the epigenome in any interesting way. Generally, the more a cell specializes, the fewer genes are active. Expressing this as "more mature" is rather dumb. "More geriatric" would be equally appropriate. Does it not matter at all, which genes are methylated? So, let's summarize the study properly: "If you don't touch your child enough, his saliva with age more slowly."
- dwaltrip 7y agoCan you back up your implication that the saliva epigenome has no other meaningful and impactful correlates?
- 08-15 7y agoWhy do you expect me to prove a negative? These "scientists" (really just tinkerers) need to argue for their implicit claim first. But they don't. They take the (correct, but hardly useful) statement "methylation generally increases with age" and instead say "with maturity" to make it sound impactful.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dmos62 7y agoSo, just how mutable is the DNA? For the sake of the discussion, I don't know anything about DNA that I can say I didn't get from a sci-fi flick.
- hornetblack 7y agoThere's a special thing called "Epigenetics". The genes coded in DNA don't change. But how they're used can change. There's methyl groups that attach to the DNA. These stop parts of the DNA being read. There's Histones which wind up your DNA and control how much can be read. These are used control which parts of DNA are used by which cells. Evey cell has the same Genome, but each cell needs a different program to function, so changing the Gene Expression you get a different kind of cell.
- Florin_Andrei 7y agoThese are not mutations. They're more like tags.
- anonytrary 7y agoN = 100, and all of the physical contact data seems to have been reported through journaling by the parents. I wonder if that data is actually reliable.
- mlinksva 7y agoI initially misread as "How much a baby is touched _by_ leaves [leaves] measurable effects on DNA." Leaving me with an idle question: has the effect of interaction with plants on child development been studied?
- yc20017 7y agoDitto :D
- 8bitsrule 7y agoNot too surprising that earliest experiences in life are going to color an individual's expectations of the world, and how to respond to it. "consequences on the epigenome" as the article so charmingly puts it.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago> "consequences on the epigenome" Indeed such a stupid phrase. Any dynamic activity in the body, every process or change which happens due to dynamic actions during life is technically a consequence on the epigenome, because it requires some cells/organs to change some chemical reactions, produce more of this stuff and less of that stuff - it requires activating some genes and deactivating other genes. You drink tea - it has consequences on the epigenome. You think happy thoughts instead of sad ones - it has consequences on the epigenome... You excercise - it has consequences on the epigenome...
- Accujack 7y agoYour talking about the epigenome has consequences on the epigenome.
- lngnmn1 7y agoWow, this is fucking idiocy. DNA operates only on the protein level (synthesis and expression). There is the fundamental principle in biology - for an organism to survive DNA must be stable and protected from external interference.
- VeninVidiaVicii 7y agoThe epigenome isn't some mystical thing, it's just a manifestation of the environment on cellular function. These kinds of sensationalist articles are exquisitely frustrating as a genomicist.
- SachaMichel 7y agoThe article never claims that it's mystical...why do you say it's sensationalist?
- badestrand 7y agoYou need to give that knowledge time to spread. The vast majority of living adults learned in school that the DNA is fixed and the surrounding stuff is just junk. Eventually everyone will know about epigenetics but how else would you spread the information if not with articles like these.
- VeninVidiaVicii 7y agoA few months ago, I spoke to my uncle, who's an endocrinologist at a medical school, and when I told him "Your organs are different because of epigenetics" a lightbulb went off in his head. I think outreach is just doing am awful job of explaining epigenetics. Even his colleagues in genetics hadn't really been able to explain it very succinctly. Instead, articles are full of explanations like this one, leading you to make outlandish conclusions. Hell, even in one of my community outreach events, a farmer came up to me afterwards and said he doesn't want to grow any crops with methylated DNA.
- manmal 7y agoHow long are epigenetic changes supposed to last? Do changes caused by trauma last longer than slower changes?
- Erlich_Bachman 7y agoEvery single specific thing that a differentiated cell does (which are most cells in the organism) are technically due to "epigenetics". Epigenetics just means that there are mechanisms to activate some genes and deactivate others. This is the essential core process in differentiation, as well as in many other processes in the body. It is like asking how long do differences between your skin cells and neurons is supposed to last?
- throwaway010718 7y agoIIRC DNA methylation (sp?) is used in blood tests to determine the rate at which you are aging biologically. This article does claim that the children who are touched less develop at a slower in addition to having a lower DNA methylation. So in a sense, the less a child is touched, the slower the child ages biologically according to this marker and observation. Anecdotally, there are environmental situations where animals can significantly increase life-expectancy but at the expense of delayed sexual maturity. It would be interesting, but of course not conclusive, to see if these children experience puberty later and if they also live longer. Perhaps some neglect has some benefit.
- rawland 7y agoActual study this article is referencing: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/epigenetic-correlates-of-neonatal-contact-in-humans/9BD9799A7C6E0859B93E092EA0727A4B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psyc... Abstract: Animal models of early postnatal mother–infant interactions have highlighted the importance of tactile contact for biobehavioral outcomes via the modification of DNA methylation (DNAm). The role of normative variation in contact in early human development has yet to be explored. In an effort to translate the animal work on tactile contact to humans, we applied a naturalistic daily diary strategy to assess the link between maternal contact with infants and epigenetic signatures in children 4–5 years later, with respect to multiple levels of child-level factors, including genetic variation and infant distress. We first investigated DNAm at four candidate genes: the glucocorticoid receptor gene, nuclear receptor subfamily 3, group C, member 1 (NR3C1), μ-opioid receptor M1 (OPRM1) and oxytocin receptor (OXTR; related to the neurobiology of social bonds), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF; involved in postnatal plasticity). Although no candidate gene DNAm sites significantly associated with early postnatal contact, when we next examined DNAm across the genome, differentially methylated regions were identified between high and low contact groups. Using a different application of epigenomic information, we also quantified epigenetic age, and report that for infants who received low contact from caregivers, greater infant distress was associated with younger epigenetic age. These results suggested that early postnatal contact has lasting associations with child biology.
- gatestone 7y agoIt's very hard for a non-expert in the field to estimate the correlation vs. causality fallacies in a study like this.
- jMyles 7y agoThis is an example of the sort of cases in which I worry that experts become clouded by zealotry; I think it's more likely that a generalist-at-a-distance will poke the right holes in the methodology of these kinds of studies.
- username90 7y agoI wonder why they don't have independent statisticians review each paper doing statistics? Seems weird and abusable that only people from the same subfield reviews the papers.
- m_rcin 7y agoIt's hard enough to find reviewers in the same field. I imagine finding statisticians to review papers from fields they don't care about would be problematic. You probably know that reviewers work for free.
- mikorym 7y agoI have some background to understand this (bioinformatics Honours), but am not an expert. What I can say is that the study at this point, if based on DNA methylation, does not even suggest that the effect is of physical contact is positive (to be Devil's advocate, the DNA methylation from physical contact could have a negative effect). The study does ask for indicators (crying, behaviour, etc.) but with those parameters you can already try to correlate a lot of physical contact vs. less contact. They are trying to tell whether methylation is worth studying (at all) in the context of more vs. less contact with your child. Personally, for the purposes of raising a child, I don't think these studies say anything at all. It's more important to stop panicking about nonexistent threats that social media wackos will try to convince you of. Epigenetics is a very interesting field of study and is like a downtuned Lamarckian inheritance all over again. Things like chronic inflammation are still far from well understood. The body is like having 2 000 000 000 years of Wikipedia and all its edit history crammed into one string of DNA letters. And now we learn that apparently metadata (the DNA methylation) is also crammed into the whole thing and even that changes all the time. By the way, for that matter, what constitutes "affectionate physical contact" quantitatively is not clear to me. I think each child's particular emotional need at any time is really difficult to pinpoint. I had a great childhood and parents, but I think that I always had a sort of angst (maybe competitive angst?) that really can't be said to be anyone's fault. These days if you feel funny and go the psychologist they will probably say: "Don't worry. It's just appropriate affect. If you spend 15 hours a day on Instagram then you are supposed to feel funny."